“Fundamental rights are human rights and are, therefore, natural rights which are not conferred by the Constitution of India to take away. Sarv Mittra Sikri, the 13th chief justice of India has been proven right in subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court. Most notably, decisions in IR Coelho vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2007) and Justice KS Puttaswamy Retd vs. Union of India (2017) have recognised that his is indeed the position and have overruled judgments to the contrary…Parliament itself has recognised the basic structure doctrine by amending Article 359 (1) so that even when a proclamation of emergency is in operation, Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended.”
- Justice Rohinton Nariman in Basic Structure Doctrine: Protector of Constitutional Integrity (2025), p.152, 153, 154
If once people become inattentive to the public affairs, “you and I, Congress and Assemblies, judges and Governors shall become wolves.”
- Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of USA in a letter dated 16 January 1787
“Given its increasing focus on Homeland security, the Government of India has initiated several steps to coordinate, consolidate and structure its approach to better manage this sector in the country and to overcome the current internal and external threats… One such initiative involves plans to set up a National Intelligence Grid to link all the intelligence agencies in various ministries and departments that deal with homeland security. Another significant initiative is the ongoing drive to provide a Unique Identification Number to all Indian citizens which is also aligned to the wider cause of intelligently networking the Indian ecosystem”.
- Homeland Security in India, 2010, a joint report by ASSOCHAM and KPMG
“The requirement in Biometrics for all the subsequent programs under the National Census will become significant. This shows where the NPR program which is linked to UID is headed.”
- Homeland Security Assessment India: Expansion and Growth, ASSOCHAM’s joint report with Aviotech, June 2011
A five-judge Supreme Court bench of justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai had dismissed review petitions on 20 January 2021 after the proceedings in the chambers on 11 January 2021. The review petitions had challenged the Court’s September 2018 judgement, justice Chandrachud had dissented citing the decision of November 2019 by a five-judge Constitution bench which awaited adjudication by a large bench. Seven petitioners including Jairam Ramesh had filed review petitions under Article 137 of the Constitution of India because they found the judgement dated 26 September 2018 to be erroneous. Now the matter is before the seven-judge bench led by justice Gavai, the 52nd chief justice of India. So far, the Court has not factored in that all four existing Aadhaar databases—person database, reference database, biometric database, verification log—are with State and non-State entities from US, France and UK.
This will be the first hearing in the case in the aftermath of the audit report of the functioning of the ministry of electronics and information technology’s unique identification authority of India (UIDAI). The report of the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) of India arose from a performance audit of the functioning of the UIDAI for the period from 2014-15 to 2018-19 based on statistical information “to the extent as furnished by UIDAI” up to March 2021. CAG seemed oblivious of the fact that metadata being collected by UIDAI and its vendors has the ability to redefine human existence in ways which are yet fully to be perceived. Mining of meta data results in the creation of new knowledge about individuals; something which even she/he did not possess. When the seven-judge bench pronounces its verdict, it will have the opportunity to draw from the CAG’s audit reports of April 2022.
In the light of the verdict of the nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court dated 24 August 2017 in Justice KS Puttaswamy (retd) vs Union of India, the verdict on Aadhaar Act by the five-judge Constitution bench of the court dated 26 September 2018 in Justice KS Puttaswamy (retd.) vs Union of India, section 25 of Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench of the court dated 13 November 2019 in Roger Mathew vs South India Bank Ltd, there is a compelling logic for the immediate hearing of the case.
Aadhaar-related schemes and the Aadhaar Act exist on the assumption that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right. The Aadhaar Bill was introduced by a government which submitted to the Supreme Court in writing that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right. The union legislature and state governments were misled by the Union government at the time of enacting the Aadhaar Act. The enactment faced unprecedented protests in the Rajya Sabha, the council of the Indian states.
The Supreme Court's verdict has totally demolished this flawed assumption and vindicated the protest of the parliamentarians in the Rajya Sabha. It is noteworthy that the first petition against the Aadhaar database project was filed on 18 October 2012, after almost two years of the launch of the database project in September 2010 subsequent to the formation of UIDAI in January 2009 unmindful of the recommendations of the London School of Economics.
The fact is that the report of the Union government’s task force on identity management reveals that the database project has been unfolding since 2006 under the department of electronics and information technology (renamed as the ministry of electronics and information technology) according to the ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Limited which envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s Aadhaar would have with the electoral database. Subsequently, CAG’s audit report pointed out that Wipro received undue favours from the UIDAI. All the files related to it were not shared for audit.
Pronouncing the verdict, in the 12-digit biometric unique identification Aadhaar number database project case on the matter of fundamental right to privacy, unlike the Union government, state governments, complicit political parties, academic institutions, the presiding officers of the legislatures, alumni association of IIT Bombay, donor-driven writers and owner-editors of news outlets, the Supreme Court’s rare nine-judge Constitution bench unanimously recognised that “The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution” of India. The Constitution bench’s judgement dated 24 August 2017 refers to the “basic structure” of the Constitution of India on 14 occasions.
The judgement makes it abundantly clear that requiring a 12-digit electronic-biometric Aadhaar number for availing citizens’ rights and entitlements “betrays lack of understanding of the reason why rights are protected in the first place as entrenched guarantees in a Bill of Rights or, as in the case of the Indian Constitution, as part of the fundamental rights. Elevating a right to the position of a constitutionally protected right places it beyond the pale of legislative majorities. When a Constitutional right such as the right to equality or the right to life assumes the character of being a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it assumes inviolable status: inviolability even in the face of the power of amendment… Constitutionally protected rights embody the liberal belief that personal liberties of the individual are so sacrosanct that it is necessary to ensconce them in a protective shell that places them beyond the pale of ordinary legislation. To negate a constitutional right on the ground that there is an available statutory protection is to invert constitutional theory.
As a matter of fact, legislative protection is in many cases, an acknowledgment and recognition of a constitutional right which needs to be effectuated and enforced through protective laws….it would be plainly unacceptable to urge that the existence of law negates the rationale for a constitutional right or renders the constitutional right unnecessary.”
The Aadhaar Act is an 'ordinary legislation' which has been enacted using illegitimate and impermissible extra-constitutional means. Several provisions of Aadhaar Act have been outlawed to dilute the toxicity of the Aaadhar Act without success. The toxic provisions of the unjust law in question were certified by the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha in a proven act of dereliction of duty.
The Court pulverised the contention of the attorney general of India who had advanced the controversial argument of the Union government that the Constitution of India does not recognise the right to privacy as a fundamental right because of which Indians have been compelled, coerced and bulldozed to enroll for the Aadhaar number database project.
The Aadhaar number database project is being implemented with the help of foreign biometric technology companies like Safran group, Accenture and Ernst & Young from France, USA and UK at the rate of Rs2.75 per enrolment for all the present and future Indians. Apparently, under the influence of international financial and military institutions, the Union government’s stance has been insincere from the very outset. The total estimated budget of the biometric Aadhaar number project has not been disclosed till date. Without disclosing the total estimated budget of the project, the government has been 'boasting' about benefits from the database project. This 'boast' has been recorded even in the court’s subsequent judgement of September 2018 which refers to the “basic structure” of the Constitution of India on 15 occasions, which says, “The Government boasts of multiple benefits of Aadhaar.”
It refers to the decision of the 13-judge Constitution bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case, in which the 14th chief justice of India justice Sikri concluded that the fundamental rights could not be 'amended out of existence'. It emerges that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty and other fundamental rights cannot be 'amended out of existence' through the Aadhaar Act without violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
The judgement has recorded that “the creation and composition of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) is an indicator of, and is essential to, constitutional federalism. It is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution as held in Kuldip Nayar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors (2006). Therefore, the Rajya Sabha could not have been bypassed while passing the legislation in question and doing away with this process and also the right of the President to return the Bill has rendered the statute unconstitutional,” referring to the Aadhaar Bill. It is not surprising that the certificate of the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha was subjected to judicial review and adjudicated upon in November 2019 by a five-judge Constitution bench and referred to a larger Constitutional bench.
Notably, the nine-judge bench comprised the 44th chief justice of India, justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agarwal, Rohinton Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abdul Nazeer has concluded that right to privacy is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The then attorney general of India KK Venugopal had opposed the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right asserting the stand of the Union government in the Supreme Court. But in the farewell ceremony of the 44th chief justice, Mr Venugopal reversed his stance saying, "We have now an extraordinary judgement which has upheld the right to privacy as a major fundamental right which, if we look into the newspapers or TV, has been welcomed by every single person in this country. And that, I think, is one of the greatest things that the Supreme Court of India has done." The leading judgement was authored by justice Chandrachud. It is apparent that Mr Venugopal does not endorse the position of the government of India on the fundamental right to privacy and the privacy-invasive database project.
The Court is duty-bound to apply the doctrine of prohibition of 'unconstitutional condition' which means any stipulation imposed upon the grant of a governmental privilege which, in effect, requires the recipient of the privilege to relinquish some constitutional right.
It is evident that the implementation of the Aadhaar number database is an exercise which is forbidden by the Constitution of India. If this could be done, Constitutional guarantees, so carefully safeguarded against direct assault, are open to destruction by the indirect, but no less effective, process of requiring a surrender, which, though in form voluntary, in fact lacks none of the elements of compulsion. State does not have the constitutional power to discontinue benefits due to citizens. State’s power to withhold recognition or affiliation altogether does not carry with it unlimited power to impose conditions which have the effect of restraining the exercise of fundamental rights. Infringement of a fundamental right is nonetheless infringement because it is accomplished through the conditioning of a privilege. If a legislature attaches to a public benefit or privilege restraining the exercise of a fundamental right, the restraint can draw no constitutional strength whatsoever from its being attached to benefit or privilege. This is applicable to the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions prohibits the State from denying citizens a benefit by making access to that benefit conditional upon citizens’ abstaining from exercising any or all of their fundamental rights. This is despite the fact that there is no antecedent right to that benefit in the first place. It emerges that no Union or state government can coerce citizens to access subsidies by sacrificing their private data by enrolling for the Aadhaar number database given the fact that they have a right to subsidy. No government has the Constitutional power to make the right to have rights a condition precedent.
Justice Nariman rejected the government’s position on the fundamental right to privacy
In the concluding paragraph of his 122-page-long order as part of the landmark verdict of the nine-judge Constitution bench on right to privacy, justice RF Nariman wrote, “This reference is answered by stating that the inalienable fundamental right to privacy resides in Article 21 and other fundamental freedoms contained in Part III of the Constitution of India.”
In the opening paragraph of his order, justice Nariman states, “A three-judge bench of this court was dealing with a scheme propounded by the government of India popularly known as the Aadhaar card scheme. Under the said scheme, the government of India collects and compiles both demographic and biometric data of the residents of this country to be used for various purposes.
“One of the grounds of attack on the said scheme is that the very collection of such data is violative of the 'right to privacy'. Aadhaar scheme refers to the 21st century version of Panopticon called Central Identities Data Repository of Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar numbers which is an automatic identification and surveillance project.”
Justice Nariman recalled the decision in the Peter Semayne vs Richard Gresham (1604) in the United Kingdom to underline that 'every man's home is his castle and fortress for his defence against injury and violence, as well as for his repose'.
He cited the decision of William Pitt, the Elder, which reads: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter, all his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
If they are not allowed by the Constitution to enter even the huts of Indians, how can they or their government be allowed to intrude into their body through biometric identification based on 'biometric information', meaning photograph, fingerprints, iris scan, or such other biological attributes' as per section 2 (g) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016?
Justice Nariman recorded the argument of attorney general KK Venugopal wherein he submitted that “between the right to life and the right to personal liberty, the former has primacy and any claim to privacy which would destroy or erode this basic foundational right can never be elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right.”
Having done so, he observed, “We do not find any conflict between the Right to Life and the Right to Personal Liberty…The Right to Personal Liberty being an extension of the Right to Life.”
Justice Nariman wrote, “We see no antipathy whatsoever between the rich and the poor in this context. It seems to us that this argument is made through the prism of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, by which the Aadhaar card is the means to see that various beneficial schemes of the government filter down to persons for whom such schemes are intended.”
He rejected the attorney general's argument, observing that “the right to privacy would be found, inter alia, in Article 21 in both 'life' and 'personal liberty' by rich and poor alike primarily against state action.”
He debunked the contentions of the state of Gujarat which reads; “if information is already in the public domain and has been parted with, there is no privacy right.”
It was unbecoming of the Gujarat government to attempt to mislead the Court by bringing an outdated test of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' from the US Supreme Court. Justice Nariman's order notes that this submission draws from the judgment in Katz vs United States (1967) and Miller vs United States (1976), which are outdated because the US Congress enacted the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 1978 to neutralise it, nipping an alarming tendency of attaching privacy in relation to property and not to the person.
The Gujarat government failed to inform the court that in Minnesota vs Carter (1998), the US Supreme Court found the Katz test a 'notoriously unhelpful test'.
Justice Scalia criticised the application of this test saying, “In my view, the only thing the past three decades have established about the Katz test (which has come to mean the test enunciated by Justice Harlan's separate concurrence in Katz case) is that, unsurprisingly, those 'actual (subjective) expectation[s] of privacy that society is prepared to recognise as reasonable', bear an uncanny resemblance to those expectations of privacy that this court considers reasonable.”
“This self-indulgent test provision does not guarantee some generalised ‘right of privacy' and leave it to this court to determine which particular manifestations of the value of privacy 'society is prepared to recognise as 'reasonable',” he said.
Our Supreme Court has referred to criticism of the proposition that if there is voluntary parting of information there is no right to privacy in District Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad vs Canara Bank (2005) with approval.
Justice Nariman recalled the significance of the dissenting judgment by justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead vs United States (1928). Justice Brandeis held that “in the application of a constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been but of what may be.”
“The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions,” Justice Louis Brandeis had said. His view was held as the correct view of the law in 1967.
Citing James Otis, a late 18th century jurist, justice Brandeis cautioned against placing 'the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer even in the face of much lesser intrusions than wiretapping. Such intrusions are “subversive of all the comforts of society” in the words of Lord Camden, chief justice of the King's bench in the early 18th century.
It emerged that the right to privacy, which is part of the Right to Life and Liberty, cannot be placed in the hands of the officers of UIDAI, ministry of electronics and information technology and related ministries. It cannot be contended that the Indian Constitution does not afford protection against such invasions of individual security through CIDR-based mass surveillance.
Justice Nariman's order recalled the seminal judgment of justice KK Mathew in Gobind vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) wherein he observed, “Time works changes and brings into existence new conditions. Subtler and far-reaching means of invading privacy will make it possible to be heard in the street what is whispered in the closet.”
“Of course, privacy primarily concerns the individuals. It therefore relates to and overlaps with the concept of liberty,” he added.
In the context of CIDR of Aadhaar numbers, violation of privacy primarily concerns the personal sensitive information of the whole nation comprising present and future generations of citizens including present and future soldiers, presidents, prime ministers, national security advisors, chief ministers, legislators, security officials and judges. Therefore, it is deeply connected with national security.
The attorney general and Tushar Mehta, the additional solicitor general, in particular, had argued that given the fact that “our statutes are replete with a recognition of the right to privacy” there is no need to recognise it as a fundamental right.
The additional solicitor general cited “provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Indian Easements Act, 1882, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, the Public Financial Institutions (Obligation as to Fidelity and Secrecy) Act, 1983, the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Census Act, 1948, the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Information Technology Act, 2000” to contend that since these statutes already protect the privacy rights of individuals, it is unnecessary to read a Fundamental Right of Privacy into Part III of the Constitution.
Justice Nariman rejected their argument saying, “Statutory law can be made and also unmade by a simple parliamentary majority. In short, the ruling party can, at will, do away with any or all of the protections contained in the statutes mentioned herein above.
“Fundamental Rights, on the other hand, are contained in the Constitution so that there would be rights that the citizens of this country may enjoy despite the governments that they may elect.”
He observed, “The recognition of such right in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution is only a recognition that such right exists notwithstanding the shifting sands of majority governments.”
According to him, in the Indian context, a fundamental right to privacy would cover at least three aspects, namely: Privacy that involves the person, ie when there is some invasion by the state of a person’s rights relatable to his physical body, such as the right to move freely; Informational privacy which does not deal with a person's body but deals with a person's mind, and therefore, recognises that an individual may have control over the dissemination of material that is personal to him. Unauthorised use of such information may, therefore, lead to infringement of this right.
And, lastly, the privacy of choice, which protects an individual’s autonomy over fundamental personal choices.
He cited John Stuart Mill's thesis On Liberty (1859) saying, “In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Mill's cited observation contends that the appropriate region of human liberty comprises the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.
But despite citing Mill's thesis that underlines the existence of individuals' “absolute freedom” and “his independence is, of right, absolute”, Justice Nariman observed, “But this is not to say that such a right is absolute.” He may have to revisit this proposition in the light of the authorities he has cited and his own decisions.
Justice Nariman overruled the majority judgment in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (1976) -- wherein a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court “arrived at the conclusion (by majority) that Article 21 is the sole repository of all rights to life and personal liberty, and, when suspended, takes away those rights altogether” - citing previous verdict and Seervai's Constitutional Law of India.
In the ADM Jabalpur case, the majority comprised of then-chief justice AN Ray and justices Mirza Hameedullah Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, and Justice HR Khanna was in minority.
Justice Nariman records that “the majority opinion was done away with by the Constitution’s 44th amendment two years after the judgment was delivered.”
He observed: “By that amendment, Article 359 was amended to state that where a proclamation of emergency is in operation, the president may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution may remain suspended for the period during which such proclamation is in force, excepting Articles 20 and 21.”
Notably, what cannot be suspended even under Article 359 (1) during a proclamation of emergency is getting suspended due to the implementation of the Aadhaar Act. Articles 20 and 21 have been made subservient to the Aadhaar Act through biometric profiling.
Taking cognisance of the constitutional amendment, he also observed, “On this score also, it is clear that the right of privacy is an inalienable human right which inheres in every person by virtue of the fact that he or she is a human being.”
In the ADM Jabalpur case, the majority held that: “Liberty is confined and controlled by law, whether common law or statute. It is in the words of (Edmund) Burke a regulated freedom. It is not an abstract or absolute freedom” incorrectly assuming that the Constitution was the sole repository of the right to life and liberty.
Given the fact that this verdict has been overruled, how can it be inferred that the right to privacy, as part of right to life and personal liberty, is not an absolute right?
Mill’s thesis and justice Nariman’s observations remind one of what Dr BR Ambedkar had said in his last address to India's constituent assembly on 25 November 1949.
Dr Ambedkar said, “I do not say that fundamental rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted.”
He recalled the words of Thomas Jefferson, saying, “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
Citing Jefferson, Dr Ambedkar contended that the “State cannot make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living.”
It emerges that the Aadhaar case is deeply linked with the verdict in the ADM Jabalpur case and the Constitution's 44th amendment, because the CIDR entails linking Aadhaar number with essential services and citizens' entitlements, benefits and services, making the right to have rights, including right to life and personal liberty, dependent on biometric data.
As per Section 2(R) of the Aadhaar Act 2016, ‘records of entitlement' means records of benefits, subsidies or services provided to, or availed by, any individual under any programme.
As per Section 2(f) of the Act 'benefit' means any advantage, gift, reward, relief, or payment, in cash or kind, provided to an individual or a group of individuals.
As per its Section 2(w) 'service' means any provision, facility, utility or any other assistance provided in any form to an individual or a group of individuals. As per Section 2(x) 'subsidy' means any form of aid, support, grant, subvention, or appropriation, in cash or kind, to an individual or a group of individuals.
If these provisions are read with Section 23(2)(g), it is clear that powers and functions of the UIDAI and ministry of electronics and information technology includes the power of 'omitting and deactivating of an Aadhaar number and information relating thereto in such manner as may be specified by regulations' through subordinate legislation as and when they deem it appropriate.
It means that the Aadhaar Act is worse than the overruled verdict in ADM Jabalpur case because it has empowered the Central government to cause the civil death of anyone it does not like and has deprived citizens of the right to compliant as was done by ADM Jabalpur in pursuance of the presidential order dated 27 June 1975 under Article 359(1).
As per Section 47 (1) of the Aadhaar Act, “No court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by the authority or any officer or person authorised by it.”
This takes away the right of the 'residents' and citizens to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The Aadhaar Act turns every 'resident' and citizen of India into guinea pigs in the laboratory of foreign biometric technology companies by empowering the UIDAI for “promoting research and development for advancement in biometrics and related areas, including usage of Aadhaar numbers through appropriate mechanisms.”
Against such a backdrop, the observations of justice Nariman, Dr Ambekar and Jefferson assume great significance because Aadhaar Act 2016 imposes burdens on present and future generations and makes absolute the right to have fundamental rights subject to biometric identification.
Dr Ambekar cites Mill to caution “all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy” not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions.”
It is an argument which is relevant because it is evident that gullible citizens are being made to'lay their liberties at the feet of' the owners of a great database of Aadhaar numbers.
In his order, justice Nariman has recorded how the attorney general had ended up contending that “the right to privacy cannot be claimed when most of the aspects which are sought to be protected by such right are already in the public domain and the information in question has already been parted with by citizens” for advancing the argument that collection of personal sensitive information like biometric data for the CIDR is a non-issue.
His order also recorded the uncivil act of the Centre for Civil Society, an NGO, in contending that the right to privacy “ought not to be elevated in all its aspects to the level of a fundamental right” for posterity.
Notably, Mr Venugopal had represented this NGO in this very case on an earlier occasion before becoming the attorney general. Justice Nariman also recorded that the states of Kerala, Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry broadly supported the petitioners who were seeking the scrapping of Aadhaar because it violates the right to privacy.
Justice Nariman concluded: “The later judgments of this court recognising privacy as a fundamental right do not need to be revisited. These cases are, therefore, sent back for adjudication on merits to the original bench of three honourable judges of this court in light of the judgment just delivered by us.”
Subsequent to the orders of the nine-judge Constitution bench and three five-judge Constitution benches, a seven-judge bench has to decide the constitutionality of the Aadhaar number database project and the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill amid gnawing national security concerns because of involvement of foreign governments and their companies which are eyeing the rich assets of personal sensitive information of present and future Indians for all times to come. This issue is pending before the seven-judge bench since November 2019.
The verdict will have implications for talks underway in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on e-commerce wherein developed countries want access to all of the peoples’ data for free in an era where Uber-isation and Ola-isation of services is happening and attempts are underway to define goods as services. This demand is part of the proceedings of WTO.
Rarely does it happen that public institutions do not pretend to be surprised in situations where the 'fundamental rights' of citizens go to the dogs 'on account of some ill-conceived' delay in judgements.
The verdict in the reference case of right of privacy in the CIDR matter reveals that our judges have not become wolves because at least some people and a few lawyers remain attentive to public affairs.
This decision follows the footprints of stalwarts like justice Louis Brandeis, justice Radhabinod Pal, justice Fazl Ali, justice Subba Rao, justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha and justice HR Khanna.
Academia and citizenry do not hold similar opinions about those who gave verdicts in AK Gopalan vs The State of Madras, Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India, and ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla cases. When a list of good and not-so-good judges will be prepared, their names will feature prominently. Their own questionable verdicts have emerged as an exercise in self-indictment. Post-retirement statements of self-pity will be of no help. All the concerned 'individuals clothed with the powers of the state' are accountable for their acts of omission and commission and in the court of present and future generations in their lifetime.
All the judges who adjudicate on issues of life and death remain judges only till the time they deliver their judgment. After their decision, it is they and their verdict which remains under scrutiny. They get the opportunity to adjudicate once but they and their decisions are judged forever.
It has been long held that unjust laws are black laws. An unjust law cannot be deemed law. The upcoming verdict of the seven-judge Constitution bench will decide the fate of the Aadhaar Act 2016 which empowers the government to cause the civil death of fellow citizens by deactivating and omitting the Aadhaar numbers of Indians. The insights from the right to privacy verdict make it crystal clear that the CIDR of Aadhaar numbers and Aadhaar Act are violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The seven-judge Constitution bench must step in before the neglected spark of indiscriminate biometric identification and endless profiling of all present and future Indians by State and non-State actors burns the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
You may also want to read…
(Dr Gopal Krishna is a lawyer and a researcher of philosophy and law. His current work is focused on the philosophy of digital totalitarianism and the monetisation of nature. He has appeared before the Supreme Court's Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislation. He is the co-founder of the East India Research Council (EIRC). He is the convener of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) which has been campaigning for freedom from UID/Aadhaar/NPR and DNA profiling through criminal identification procedures since 2010. He had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that questioned and trashed the biometric identification of Indians through UID/Aadhaar Number. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin-based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)
Political classes government machinery constitutionaly empowered for corruption and whims. Judges appointment by nepotism.
One nation one govt one rule pan India.
Only indian citizen. No caste no religion in the eyes of constitution. National interest supermost.
Present constitution is for the welfare of political class and corrupt government machinery.
??????@ PEGASUS,??MODI JI IS ????UNEDUCATED. ????MODI SOCIAL :MEDIA ???? GOVERNMENT ???? IS RUN BY????3%???? URESIAN BRAHMINS:
???? IIT NISHIKANT DI
DUBEY & OTHER URESIAN BRAHMINS!
???????????? ?????? ?????:*
*????????????????? ?? 5-10 ???? ??*
*??????PEGASUS,???????? ?????? ????????????,????TECH FOG, ????TOOLKIT ??????????? ????NRC ??????? ???? ??????? .. ??????? ?????.. ????????????????? ?? ????RSS ???????? ?? ??? ???*
*???????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????????.. ????? ????? ????*
*??????IIT ??? ???? ???????? ??* https://www.facebook.com/TheLiveTvNews/videos/428187211881166/
https://youtu.be/diXndIuv8a8?si=WQF3oHdZzm4JttSJ
https://youtu.be/diXndIuv8a8?si=WQF3oHdZzm4JttSJ
https://www.facebook.com/TheLiveTvNews/videos/428187211881166/
https://www.bbc.com/hindi/in-depth-57900133
????
*????????????????? ?? 5-10 ???? ??*
*??????PEGASUS,???????? ?????? ????????????,????TECH FOG, ????TOOLKIT ??????????? ????NRC ??????? ???? ??????? .. ??????? ?????.. ????????????????? ?? ????RSS ???????? ?? ??? ???*
*???????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????????.. ????? ????? ????*
*??????IIT ??? ???? ???????? ??* https://www.facebook.com/TheLiveTvNews/videos/428187211881166/
https://youtu.be/diXndIuv8a8?si=WQF3oHdZzm4JttSJ
https://youtu.be/diXndIuv8a8?si=WQF3oHdZzm4JttSJ
https://www.facebook.com/TheLiveTvNews/videos/428187211881166/
https://www.bbc.com/hindi/in-depth-57900133
????
What must each individual do ?